Facts
The applicants (23 individuals) challenged the Advertisement Vacancy Notice No. 01/2026 issued by the DSSSB for the post of Grade-II (GNCTDSS)/Assistant Section Officer (Post Code 804/26)
Source reference: p. 4They contended that the upper age limit of 30 years as of March 25, 2026, was restrictive and sought a one-time age relaxation of up to three years
Source reference: p. 5The applicants argued that the recruitment cycle scheduled for 2022 was delayed, and they hailed from remote areas and low-economic backgrounds
Source reference: p. 4-5Procedurally, the applicants sought parity with a previous decision in OA No. 4278/2025 and filed an email representation only on April 7, 2026, after the application deadline had passed
Source reference: p. 5, 7Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to a one-time age relaxation and parity with previous judicial directions due to administrative delays in recruitment
Source reference: p. 4-52. Whether the court should exercise its power of judicial review to interfere with the executive's discretion regarding age limits and cut-off dates in public employment
Source reference: p. 6-7Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the doctrine of Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights)
Source reference: p. 7It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr. v. Uttam Kumar (2026 INSC 314), which established that matters of public employment must maintain a fair level playing field and that grace, charity, or compassion cannot override set rules
Source reference: p. 6-7Furthermore, the court emphasized that age relaxation falls within the exclusive domain of the executive, limiting the scope of judicial scrutiny
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Tribunal rejected the applicants' plea for age relaxation, noting that the terms and conditions of advertisements and closing dates are "sacrosanct"
Source reference: p. 5-6The court found the applicants' justification—that they resided in remote areas—unconvincing, as the memorandum revealed many resided in New Delhi
Source reference: p. 5Applying Uttam Kumar, the bench reasoned that participants in public employment must show initiative; the applicants failed to submit representations within the prescribed timeframe, making their last-minute email appear as an "afterthought"
Source reference: p. 7The Tribunal further observed that the prayer for parity could not be granted because the application deadline had already expired, and the applicants had not shown due diligence in pursuing their rights
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The Tribunal answered the issues in the negative, holding that the applicants were not entitled to relief due to a lack of diligence and because age relaxation is a policy matter for the executive
The Original Application (OA) and all pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were dismissed
Source reference: p. 7The court held that legal remedies are not available to those who "sleep over their rights"
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
POOJA YADAVvsDSSSB
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in